Published AAO appeal decisions

Research scientist in molecular biology claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. Submitted evidence of patents, scholarly articles, and published materials. AAO found two criteria satisfied but three required; evidence showed talent and potential but not sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. Appeal dismissed.

Research associate in sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed membership in Sigma Xi, judging, and scholarly articles criteria. AAO found Sigma Xi membership with 70,000 members non-exclusive, manuscript review routine without evidence of exceptional volume or editorial distinction, and publication record insufficient without independent corroboration of sustained top-level recognition.

Biophysics researcher seeking EB-1A in sciences. Counsel submitted brief and evidence addressing awards, membership, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. AAO upheld denial, finding only scholarly articles criterion met but overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability at very top level of field.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in sciences. Claimed awards, membership, published material, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found only scholarly articles criterion met; evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national acclaim or place among top percentile required for final merits step.

Dermatologist and ophthalmologist researcher claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria including publications and original contributions to treatment innovations. AAO found only one criterion met and held evidence insufficient for sustained acclaim, dismissing petition.

Research assistant professor in neuroscience sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed awards, membership, published material, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO rejected all criteria, finding provincial awards, unsubstantiated membership, and publication record insufficient for national or international acclaim, dismissing appeal.

Research associate in environmental science filed for extraordinary ability EB-1A. Claimed awards, membership, publications, judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. AAO found one award met but rejected all other criteria as insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim, dismissing appeal due to failure to satisfy minimum three criteria.

Research associate in environmental science filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability, claiming one award and publication record. AAO found one award criterion minimally met but rejected five other criteria as lacking national or international significance. Overall evidence insufficient to establish elite status.

A research scientist claims EB-1A extraordinary ability in the sciences. The petitioner asserted awards, membership, publications, original contributions, scholarly articles, leading role, and salary criteria. The AAO affirmed denial because none demonstrated the sustained national or international acclaim required to show she reached the very top of her field.

Counsel represented postdoctoral biomedical researcher in sciences. Petitioner met two criteria: original contributions via National Academy opinions and scholarly articles through sustained publication. AAO dismissed appeal, finding two criteria insufficient, no evidence of distinguished performance meriting small percentage at field top.

A neuroscientist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences submitted evidence of original contributions to signal transduction research, scholarly publications, and peer review activities. AAO found three criteria met and sustained overall merits, approving the petition.

Scientist in life sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met two of ten criteria: published material and scholarly articles. However, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

Scientist in life sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed to meet six criteria but the AAO found none met. Awards lacked significance, membership criteria not satisfied, citations insufficient, peer review routine, original contributions undemonstrated, and scholarship evidence post-dated filing. Appeal dismissed.

A scientist in water resources and environmental management claimed extraordinary ability through multiple criteria. The AAO found peer review and conference presentations met two criteria but rejected the petition because the evidence overall did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim placing the petitioner at the very top of the field.

Employer-sponsored biomedical researcher claimed six criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found two criteria met but required three, concluding petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim at the top level of the field.

A scientist studying TRK proteins and protein folding sought EB-1A classification. She claimed multiple regulatory criteria based on academic honors, publications, and research contributions. The AAO found her academic honors insufficient, publications lacked evidence of widespread citation outside support letters, and her work, though valuable, did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level required for extraordinary ability.

A self-petitioner researcher in life sciences sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. The AAO found she did not meet three or more regulatory criteria required to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the evidence collectively did not show she had risen to the very top of her field despite demonstrable skill and promise.

A self-petitioner researcher in materials science sought EB-1A classification. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding significant flaws in the director's reasoning but upholding the conclusion that the petitioner did not meet three required criteria, including through patents and recommendation letters, to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A researcher claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Petitioner claimed membership, judging, original contributions, and scholarly article criteria. AAO found memberships require only basic credentials, no peer review evidence, research work not established as major contribution, and witness letters insufficient to show sustained acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Molecular biologist claims extraordinary ability through NIH grant, recommendation letters, and publications in HIV and cancer research. AAO found valuable contributions insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim placing her at field's very top.

A pharmacokinetics reviewer at the FDA seeking extraordinary ability classification based on awards, membership, published material, peer review, and leadership roles. The AAO found only published work met criteria; other evidence was insufficient to establish sustained national acclaim warranting extraordinary ability classification.

Biomedical researcher seeking EB-1A classification met two criteria: original contributions and scholarly articles, evidenced by National Academy of Science endorsements and citations. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only two of three required criteria met and that evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top.

Pharmacokinetics reviewer at FDA sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found petitioner met only the scholarly articles criterion and failed to meet three required criteria. Evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the scientific field.

Counsel-represented postdoctoral researcher in sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that petitioner achieved sustained national or international acclaim or ranked within the small percentage at the very top of his field.

Scientist with counsel representation claimed extraordinary ability in research on protein folding. AAO found valuable contributions but no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating top-of-field status. Unsolicited evidence of major contributions absent. Appeal dismissed.